New Category suggestion. Climate change.

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Quantum Quack, Oct 16, 2018.

  1. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,511
    Yes. At the very least, it's a template in which to enter variables that are testable.
    Comparing to the distant past isn't particularly useful, because we have limited and spotty information from the past and because the same conditions are never exactly duplicated. In the case of anthropogenic situations (not only climate change), the conditions have never existed before. So, in this regard all large-scale predictions are untestable. But trends can spotted and dangers foreseen - and, at least in theory, avoided.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,504
    Here's a simple climate model you can play with:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Question:
    according to the trend graph what would be the most likely out come for the following years:

    2020
    2030
    2040
    2050

    my answer hot and hotter...
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,569
    The phrase simply means 'do I interpret you correctly?'

    I'm asking because your comments appear to be criticizing the data we do have (which is fine), but you haven't said whether you find that data leading to false conclusions, or what your stance is on the issue of climate change.

    Don't matter to me; I just wanted to understand the nature of your objections.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,837
    Perhaps, the real question is are we in the anthropocene, and, if so, what exactly does that mean?
    Personally, I do not see compelling evidence that "this time is different" ergo, my referencing to paleoclimatology.
     
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,511
    Just for starters --
    https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ive-floating-island-plastic/story?id=53962147
    https://futurism.media/deforestation-causes-effects-and-solutions
    https://www.environmentalpollutioncenters.org/oil-spill/effects/
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/groundwater-contamination
    https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,126
    It's not. The climate models use the current climate as a starting point and estimate temperature rises (and several other things.) They do NOT take a temperature rise as an input and output other interesting information.

    It's like taking a fluid dynamics simulator and asking "let's say I have this vortex in a free flowing fluid. What is the airplane that produced it?" The simulator will not be able to do that. You can, of course, use it to simulate all kinds of airplanes until you get a vortex that looks like that, just as you can play with a climate model to get that temperature rise that you want. But that is effectively using that tool backwards, and I would not expect high fidelity results.

    Of course, there are many models you can build - and as I mentioned, you might want to take a whack at that kind of "backwards" model.
    You use it and see if it accurately predicts what happens.
    You believe the Earth will not exist in the year 2100?
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,820
    which scientists work are you refering to.
    name and list them.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,837
    ok
    here's one
    Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen
     
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,820
    i would have a list of roughly 20 scientists off hand i can roughly tally
    along with peer reviewed papers on years of study

    so i am expecting you to easily list half that
    say.. 10 scientists
    5 studys
    with links to them and list thier names and their specificity in science

    that way it can be a discussion about science, rather than conspiracy theory rhetoric(which appears to be the entire climate deniers content)
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,126
    Here's another one - Willie Soon.
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,837
    A)
    B)
    A When?
    B) Making predictions of expected changes a century from now is untestable now.
    Kinda safe prediction----------even if totally insane---the proof will either happen or not happen long after the predictor and watchers are dead.
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,820
    https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2104473328_Dorthe_Dahl-Jensen

    http://forecastpod.org/index.php/20...-of-ice-core-science-with-dorthe-dahl-jensen/

    Dorthe appears ligit.
    however.
    you will need to point to her publishing of findings that clearly show her saying climate change is a hoax.

    fyi i have seen video interviews of the lead prfessor of the US Antarctic ice core study and his comments are fairly easy to understand
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,837
    Why would you think that prof. Dahl-Jensen would say that climate change is a hoax?
    Does she seem politically motivated to you?
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,837
    I do not consider Dorthe Dahl-Jensen's and Willie Soon's approach to climate science to be comparable.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,126
    Regularly. We now have predictions from ~30 years ago.
    Of course. And making predictions about the weather tomorrow is untestable now. Still, we consider weather forecasting to be testable.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,569
    I get the impression you think that making predictions is just a parlor trick, serving no useful purpose.

    I just came back from a drive in the country. The towns around here have city limits far, far larger than is warranted by the population.
    They predict that, in a century, their towns will have grown massively. If they don't plan for that now, it will be too late by the time they are certain.
    Saying "but it's untestable now" is short-sighted, and assuring it will be too late by the time we act.

    The point is: it is not just a matter of "it will either happen or not happen". The purpose of our models is to make more and more accurate predictions, so we can plan ahead.
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,837
    your models
    explain please
    what do they predict
    and how do they do that?
    (what are the inputs?)
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,569
    Maybe you should read up a little on the subject?
    It's hardly fair to ask us to bring you up-to-speed on climate change science.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,504
    Do you all recall the biblical story of Noah's ark?
    My take:
    So climate scientists (Noah) realize that the great catastrophe is immanent ( nature ( God ) is telling them). Through scientific endevour they make predictions and attempt to inform the general public. The public react to this incredible news that the world as they know it is about to end by discrediting the science (Noah) using every "timing" error they can find in those predictions to do so.

    However one day when it is way too late to do anything, those predictions come true and the opportunity for salvation is lost and the door to the ark of salvation is closed leaving all those disbelievers left behind to perish. For ark safety reasons, 40 days and nights were allowed for, to ensure the totality of the human cull before the doors were opened again.

    The key here is to cease attempting to persuade the "denialist", let nature do that job, and just get on with saving as many and as much as you can.

    Facts:
    • Water generally freezes at 0 deg C, Ice thaws at any temperature above 0 deg C
    • Oceans are warming. and becoming acidic.
    • Ice is melting more so every day.
    • Approx. 75% of the Earths surface is water.
    • Water is evaporating more so every day.
    • Water vapor is the most significant aspect of green housing.

    even blind Freddy can see we have a massive problem looming in the not too distant future.
    ( it is already being evidenced with out question)
    The difficulty with predictions made by science are not so much about IF but more about WHEN.

    Fiction:
    "At last after much searching the scientists found a planet worth colonizing. It had oxygen, water, and other resources in abundance but it's atmosphere was hostile, due to it's instability and extreme dynamics. It did have a sustainable and protective magnetosphere to block life destroying solar radiation. It was close and travel distance wasn't a problem.
    So it was decided to colonize this planet...as a way to secure the future of the human race
    They called this planet .....Earth"
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,837
    Dave:
    You are the one who claimed that they were your models:
    (post #76)
    Ok
    So if they are indeed your models---out of the many dozens available---I had assumed that you actually knew something about the models which you claimed as your own.

    It seems that you do not know.
    You do, however seem a tad on the defensive side in this matter.
    Thanks anyway.
     

Share This Page